FA+
Shop
"Are they gonna be okay?"
10 years ago
This is a phrase that I've seen a lot on ambiguous-ending vore pictures, and it took a while for me to put into words specifically why it bothers me. It shouldn't. It's a very innocuous thing to ask. But it does, and a friend of mine and I had a conversation about specifically why it's an issue.
Let's put it this way: You don't ask if, after someone ate a sandwich, the sandwich is going to be okay or if the sandwich is going to reform. It's assumed that if you eat food, that food is digested. That's what food is for.
So the default is "No." No, they don't get out unless, and here's the important part, unless otherwise noted. If you see that the artist or writer explicitly states in the description that 1) They don't like digestion or 2) This particular picture is non-fatal, then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't apply.
But of course, that assumption isn't really the issue here. You can assume that the default is non-fatal unless specifically designated fatal if you'd like. No one's stopping your initial reaction. The issue is the lack of imagination it takes to need that kind of confirmation directly from the content creator, and the burden it puts on other people's preferences who may read the content creator's reply.
The beauty of an ambiguous-ending vore picture is that both fatal and non-fatal vore lovers can enjoy it without stepping on each other's toes. What asking for confirmation of one side or the other does is lock out the entire other side. If the artist says, "It's fatal," then the non-fatal people are locked out, and vice-versa. Instead of doing that, just use your imagination.
There's a really fantastic artist,
nummynumz, who does exclusively non-fatal stuff, but a lot of it looks pretty ambiguous, so I just ignore that preference in my imagination. Never say a word to the artist.
If I can extend that courtesy to someone whose preferences are clearly stated to be something that bothers me, I feel that anybody can extend the same courtesy to other artists.
The reason I bring this up here is because I've never seen a person into fatal vore ask on an ambiguous-ending vore piece whether the prey was digested or not. It seems to be exclusively a non-fatal hangup.
SO. Solutions. Otherwise this is just a gripe journal.
1) Don't be a dick if you see this. Yes, feel free to call them out on it, but don't tell them they're jerks or anything, or they're gonna get defensive, and congrats, you've just started furry drama. Instead, just bring up the consequences of asking the question and suggest they just use their imagination to change it to whatever they prefer. It's fantasy; imagination is the point.
2) If they get defensive anyway, back off a bit and say, "Sorry. Just telling you what it looks like to me when people do this" or something along those lines. Make it about you, not about them. Chances are, if they're asking the question in the first place, they're probably insecure to begin with, so pushing the issue isn't going to help any.
3) If you're the content creator, do what
foshu does and just answer ambiguously. "I dunno!" or "Maybe!"
4) I dunno. Send 'em a link to this journal? Maybe that's not the best idea. The first two should be sufficient guidelines, I imagine. :P
—Written by
samanthaweltzin
Let's put it this way: You don't ask if, after someone ate a sandwich, the sandwich is going to be okay or if the sandwich is going to reform. It's assumed that if you eat food, that food is digested. That's what food is for.
So the default is "No." No, they don't get out unless, and here's the important part, unless otherwise noted. If you see that the artist or writer explicitly states in the description that 1) They don't like digestion or 2) This particular picture is non-fatal, then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't apply.
But of course, that assumption isn't really the issue here. You can assume that the default is non-fatal unless specifically designated fatal if you'd like. No one's stopping your initial reaction. The issue is the lack of imagination it takes to need that kind of confirmation directly from the content creator, and the burden it puts on other people's preferences who may read the content creator's reply.
The beauty of an ambiguous-ending vore picture is that both fatal and non-fatal vore lovers can enjoy it without stepping on each other's toes. What asking for confirmation of one side or the other does is lock out the entire other side. If the artist says, "It's fatal," then the non-fatal people are locked out, and vice-versa. Instead of doing that, just use your imagination.
There's a really fantastic artist,
nummynumz, who does exclusively non-fatal stuff, but a lot of it looks pretty ambiguous, so I just ignore that preference in my imagination. Never say a word to the artist.If I can extend that courtesy to someone whose preferences are clearly stated to be something that bothers me, I feel that anybody can extend the same courtesy to other artists.
The reason I bring this up here is because I've never seen a person into fatal vore ask on an ambiguous-ending vore piece whether the prey was digested or not. It seems to be exclusively a non-fatal hangup.
SO. Solutions. Otherwise this is just a gripe journal.
1) Don't be a dick if you see this. Yes, feel free to call them out on it, but don't tell them they're jerks or anything, or they're gonna get defensive, and congrats, you've just started furry drama. Instead, just bring up the consequences of asking the question and suggest they just use their imagination to change it to whatever they prefer. It's fantasy; imagination is the point.
2) If they get defensive anyway, back off a bit and say, "Sorry. Just telling you what it looks like to me when people do this" or something along those lines. Make it about you, not about them. Chances are, if they're asking the question in the first place, they're probably insecure to begin with, so pushing the issue isn't going to help any.
3) If you're the content creator, do what
foshu does and just answer ambiguously. "I dunno!" or "Maybe!"4) I dunno. Send 'em a link to this journal? Maybe that's not the best idea. The first two should be sufficient guidelines, I imagine. :P
—Written by
samanthaweltzin
But even when I am blunt I play it light heartedly, "it's just a scratch" "till the acids kick in" ect.
I do like those snarky responses, though. :D
I think they forget that it is a fetish, that has quite a lot of differing opinions when it comes to personal preference and that sometimes things need to be dialed back.
I've never had such a problem with digestion in vore as long as I don't see something like furry children getting digested!
I'm just going to say that you're not going to hear me being an annoying bastard!:3
if they ask me i will give a proper answer and since i like fatal its mostly that
—samanthaweltzin
the way i do ambiguous build ups are cruel to start with so thinking the fella is gonna get out or survive.... what the softies think is beyond me.
when confronted about it i ask, "did the predator take special care to make sure the prey felt secure, or did he lie and put the fear of reality into em?"
i will get those that ask what it has to do with anything, but after that point common sense is lost.
I do have people aksing me from time to time, I simply answer Maybe! Could be!
E.g. "Now someone needs to eat the [predator in picture]!", "[predator in picture] looks delicious!", "onto the other snack now!",
The established roles is a big part of vore for me, and when involving my own characters that's the case moreso.
What it really boils down to is just greed though, someone desiring to make a public/shared depiction fit their own sensibilities. And worse, with the ones that want to save a character, they end up questioning basically the morality of the predator, and it can feedback to the artist and the fetish itself, and applying morality to vore just ruins the entire thing for various reasons, especially considering that it's a freaking impossible to achieve fantasy involving made up characters...
They want the art/story adapted to their own personal fantasy; that's a reasonable thing to 'wish for', but rude to outright request or demand. And as mentioned, there's nothing stopping them from imagining without the artist's or writer's consent: They want the 'default' changed and that's the faux paus of it.
That said, I think sometimes on comics or long stories people get attached to the characters, and for it to suddenly end in a way they didn't expect can be upsetting. Requesting that the work be changed isn't the answer, but it does make sense several would go that route, not knowing how to deal with the disappointment they are experiencing.
I think in general, the more people like or get attached to work only for it to be counter to their interests in the end. . . the bigger the fallout. I ran into that hard when I made an advanced profile for my vorish restaurant (http://profile.aryion.com/profile/TheApex). I built it out slowly over a few months without listing preferences first, so people started following my progress and got *really* excited about. When I got it done enough to start playing it, a lot of people got disappointed because of my strict species rules for predators and prey. People try to make the case on why I should change my preferences to suit their character. Further it has also ran into the 'make it non-fatal!' problem. I've encountered so much drama over that to the point that it has made it hard to want to play with it publicly; it has became a chore. A shame given the world building efforts and plans I've had for it.
—samanthaweltzin
But yeah, it really does ultimately boil down to greed or self-centeredness. "I want the world to conform to my preferences!" As I said to someone bothering me on Eka's Portal, media is full of instances where the good guy ultimately triumphs over evil. The fact that most of my predators are either amoral or outright evil is just a fun little exploration of the opposite because ultimately, it doesn't matter. Leave your morals at the door if you're dealing with fatal vore, because the second you open up that can of worms, you leave things like "justice vore" up for questioning, and I don't know about you, but I don't really want to have a discussion on the frickin' death penalty in a piece of fetish artwork.
If they don't show what happens - anything can happen. Use your imagination. It's open ended for a reason.
(at long as we use the definition of fine that means 'in very small pieces' that is)
Thank you.
As for me, gotta admit I'm very direct about my preferences and try to make it clear in everything I draw, either as personal art or commissions; funny thing is pretty much have expressed I do like fatal or permanent vore yet still get either asked or have seen people comment in such way looks like they're trying to fit their answer for non-fatal forcefully and get still affirmation for it despite description says it's perma/fatal, it honestly bothers me cuz they could easily ignore it like I do with others people preferences, and have seen them also comments about it if do a commissioned vore drawing in the commissioners user page if they post it; in case have draw an ambiguous vore scene try to make it clear it's up to them, seems to work and don't understand why one should ask if its non-fatal or not, I think pretty much takes off the pleasure from it if you just used your imagination to make it fit your preferences or desires like could do with any other fetish on the fandom.
It's just very selfish.
I myself (samanthaweltzin) have had a fair number of people get on my case about the stuff I draw, and it's amazing just how nasty people can be. Like, who's the real "evil" person here: The one who draws fictional characters dying, or the one hurting a real person about it in defense of people who aren't real?
I maybe have never faced such thing but can say have few friends had to deal with such thing, call it for drawing/writing vore or other fetish that imply death or just exaggerattion; that's why it bothers me when that kind of people comment or make the question expressed in this journal in a commissioned work I did when the commissioner decides to post it, because even if I draw it, feels they're attacking someone who worked hard and trusted me to express and make real something they love or enjoy, to see it crumble or made feel bad because of who they´re, and I know what it feels be judged even if not under this context.
The -only- criterion for a good piece of fetish material is whether or not it accomplishes its goal. Subject matter is just up to the creator and the one it's created for, and no one should criticize that.
I like all kinds of vore, even non-fatal, what I dont like it's people that need to do such thing just to force other people to fit their expectatives or tastes
The best thing about joint accounts is that you can type something, and any one of the admins could be the one making the post.
Maybe this is Damien even. :O
—samanthaweltzin
Non-fatal people aren't "bad guys" or "good guys" any more than fatal people are. The problems we're discussing here are the non-fatal people who bully fatal people for their harmless tastes or who try to ruin a fatal scenario by complaining. The former's far worse, of course, but the latter is bad manners and at least worth discussing.
Fatality/death/murder are bad things, yes, which is why we explicitly state that we don't want anyone in this group who advocates for such things in real life. But in fantasy, everything is fair game because there are no consequences. We're able to explore the darker aspects of the world in a safe way, making us more well-rounded people. And yes, there's a sexual element to it, but your sexuality does not denote what kind of person you are. People into BDSM can be saints, and people into loving vore can be real scumbags. I had a willing/non-fatal vore person tell me that I'm burning in hell, and posited that perhaps my father beat my mother while I was in the womb. THAT is scum, and the guy's sexual fantasies are as benign and friendly as can be.
And recently there was some furs who here was discussing on a FA journal how disappointed they where because a documentary they wanted to see didn't show a REAL scared innocent person get vored alive by a REAL snake.
It's easy to avoid the fatal vore fetish irl because it's impossible to do irl. But imagine if it did exist and people were able to do it irl
I don't know what you're talking about with the journal about snake vore, but as I just said, this group is against that, and we hope those people realize just how terrible that is.
It probably wouldn't be that much different than murder, which people -do- IRL. It'd be illegal, and only the worst of the worst people would do it. In fact, it is possible to some extent, as can be seen with people swallowing goldfish and recording it for others to jerk off to. We're against that too.
Even so, you're just bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points. This whole group is about being civil to one another and discussing a common interest. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you don't have to hang around.
Also, I'm 99% convinced that this Extrafur account is just an alt account of his so he can say things without directing people back to his page.
Simple, no?
I'm not changing the quote. If people can't figure out that it's meant to be humorous, too bad.
As for the quote. How is calling someone an idiot humeruos? Doesn't that go contradict the goal to be civil?
As for the quote: It should be self-evident that it's fantasy. If it's not, you deserve to be mocked. Besides, that's not to anyone in specific; just a general thing. If I have to explain how it's humorous, then it's not your kind of humor and you wouldn't get it anyway.
You should be civil to people, but if someone has a stupid belief, they deserve to be called out on it. Besides, if you're offended by a silly quote in a section of the profile almost no one reads, we don't really want you hanging around this group anyway. Just because we're promoting civility doesn't mean we can't be selective in who our audience is. This group is for fatal vore furs first and foremost. If that's not you and you can't identify with that quote, you really don't have a place here. There are other places much more willing to take you, I'm sure.
Further, non-fatal-vore fans aren't an enemy of this group. There is no real rivalry between them. The 'crusader' mindset of 'what you like is evil!' is pretty much universally disliked by both camps, it is just encountered directly by those in the fatal-vore camp. In general people who like non-fatal vore co-exist peacefully with the ones who enjoy fatal, and even back them up. If you're encountering situations where a non-fatal-vore fan is being attacked by 'fatal vore fans', try taking a step back and looking again; they weren't attacked for just casually expressing an opinion or saying what they liked.
As for this topic, it mentions non-fatal vore people, but it's not talking about them specifically; just the (usually unintended) rude behavior of asking for clarification on to the prey's fate. It just so happened that it is an occurrence that largely seems to be brought up from non-fatal-vore focused people and that's what that was mentioned. It's not really a slight against them, it's just an observation to better understand why it comes up. Someone else mentioned the equal (or worse) behavior of people commenting in conflict with the artists intent of the piece, and it was acknowledged by the main FatalVoreFurs account that this behavior was seen on both sides.
We mean it. This group is for -anyone- who likes fatal vore, even if they cross into non-fatal as well. This journal is just about dickish behavior and a few tips on how to handle it if/when you see it. If you want to see a journal about dickish behavior fatal vore furs do, ask the nonfatalvorefurs admins to write something up. That's their area of expertise, not ours. It's hard to see the wrong your own people do, so while we do see dickish behavior from fatal vore furs, it's not as often because we don't go browsing non-fatal vore material, which is where the fatal fringe is being obnoxious.
That's why it's important that when anyone takes a stand against something that they reassess their behaviors again and again to know they are making the right choices. This group has only really aligned itself as seeing a few things as being dickish, and it's hard to find any fault in that in itself.
And in regards to the 'quote' again, it's hard to find any fault in it either; even when attempting to see it from a non-fatal-side or the prospective of any one really, since it's only addressing the context of someone implying that fatal vore isn't fantasy or has ramifications outside of fantasy: And again, most non-fatal-vores don't have that viewpoint. The only person who seems like they could truly take offense would be the sort frowned on by both parties, someone implying that fatal vore people are evil: And even then, only when trying to convince themselves they were in the right; with implications that they were wrong making them uncomfortably question their position and stance.
Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) is infamous for having a 'freak out phase'. That context didn't make his actions or words any better. One has to take responsibility for what they do or say in every circumstance; even when they are drunk, angry, depressed, medicated, tired, stressed, inexperienced, or old. That's just part of being an adult.
I've had a few comments concerning the ultimate fate of whomever it was that ended up in the predator's stomach - can't really say I've been hassled about it. More of a difference of opinion.
But speaking as prey in response to the question of "being okay" - heck , yeah! I'm fine! Right where I want to be: inside a voracious belly intent on digestion! I'm not just okay; I'm in paradise - and will enjoy it for the rest of my (very short) life! :3
Basically, I'll just reply, quite matter of factly, what is going on in the picture, as part of my own headcanon. At least that's how I deal with art on my user page. I'll either say that the situation is unresolved, or I'll clearly state my preference of what happens, and that's it. I don't feel like I need to question the motives of the people asking the question at all, probably because I empathise with those people too much, I guess.
Maybe it is because I am extremely sensitive to fatal vore. I like it and all, but it still creates an intense amount of cognitive dissonance with me if it's done "wrong" (wrong in my eyes, I mean. I have a lot of caveats relating to vore of my characters).
Anyway, most of the time, it's pretty much unavoidable anyway for the comments section to 'colour' the overall perception of the ending of the vore scenario. That's not just achieved by asking questions. People can also state things they assume about the ending with absolute certainty, and it can really drive some of the more meek vore-lovers (myself included) up against a wall. The majority of ambiguous ending vore pictures, from what I see, will get comments assuming that the default is pretty much 'death forever!' so non-fatal vore lovers don't actually get that benefit of default assumption almost anywhere.
Of course that could make them insecure, since most of the time, they aren't given the benefit of the doubt, even when relating to their own characters sometimes. I've had it a few times where I carefully suggested that the fate of my character could be ambiguous in a vore picture, and it immediately got the reaction that 'he'll be pudge forever!' and they then actually got more and more pushy about that fate to the point where it made me really uncomfortable. But if it's greedy to ask that question, I don't really know.
That's just my two cents though. I agree that things intended to be left open to interpretation should be left that way. I just wanted to iterate the fact that the people asking aren't bad people or greedy or 'lack imagination' necessarily. I could be wrong though.
But yeah. Point is, if it's ambiguous, leave it ambiguous. Otherwise you're putting your own preferences into the work and wrecking it for others.
I do feel the journal had some unnecessarily negative assumptions of somebody asking this question, and I just wanted to explain, from my own experience, why I sympathise with them, and don't think those people always ask it because they're inconsiderate, or greedy, or selfish, or they lack imagination, or some of the other words I saw in the journal post and some comments on this journal.
Asking doesn't at all make me feel like preferences are being put into a work, or at least far less from absolute statements being made (from both sides). And even then, if those comments are not on my character or things I post on my gallery, it's not a big deal when I see them. Again, comments colour the perception of the post, regardless.
I am not sure if what I see -- people always saying with absolute certainty that an ambiguous ending is fatal -- is less common than it actually is. I did say I could be wrong, because we all have our cognitive biases that we have to try to fight against, and I might just be suffering from severe confirmation bias. Other people might feel that way too, which might also contribute to people asking that question more often: because they feel cornered. I should definitely check whether I see those comments mostly on art posted by artists who are known for specifically doing fatal vore. Thanks for telling me that.
Also, side note: Obviously, if people explain clearly they don't like seeing those kind of questions in their comments, that should be respected. If people can't figure that out, then they have problems. Just wanted to say that I didn't believe everybody should just suck up all the askers. In case that wasn't clear. x3
I have to ask...is this indeed a thing you find happening to you? I have never really let the comment section color my perception of the content of a creation, unless the comment has come specifically from the creator or one of the subjects involved in the art/story. Even if they are being absolute in their statements, and even aggressive about it? Are they involved in the creation in any way? No? Well what does it matter how loud they are being? If the creator/subjects haven't removed the ambiguity of the creation, then it remains ambiguous.
I think this is linked to the 'insecurity' Humbug(samanthaweltzin) is talking about. It's not that people are too scared to speak up, but rather that they do not have confidence in their own preferred "headcanon" to leave the matter alone. But perhaps that's not where the question always stems from, sure. By asking "Are they going to be okay?" (Or any other similar question 'Did they get digested?' 'Are they just pudge now?' etc.) they are seeking confirmation from the creator on something that is, often intentionally, ambiguous. Even if they are just curious, the question arises as to where that curiosity stems from? I know I've been curious about the end fate of an image or story, certainly. But I also know that the answer I want to hear, based on my own preferences, is "Yes, they were digested." And even if I am perfectly okay with the creator telling me "No, they got out," something has now happened. Confirmation and 'canon' have been established and the image is no longer ambiguous.
And that brings us to the meat of the issue, really, and why Humbug (and myself) would consider that rude. Even if it's for the sake of my own curiosity, if the creator gives confirmation one way or the other, that can very easily lock out anyone who isn't into that. If they are indeed safe, people who very much prefer fatal vore now have confirmation that it is not fatal, and while they can certainly cling to their own headcanon internally, it is now an active act against the intended canon. Same with the other way around, of course. If the creator deems them fatally digested, now the non-fatal crowd can't enjoy it. All because I was 'curious'. Personally? I think that's very selfish. Because -I- wanted an answer, now many people may not be able to enjoy what was otherwise ambiguous. I would also think that rather inconsiderate to those people, and to the creator. If they were intentionally leaving things ambiguous so people could come to their own conclusions and enjoy it in their own fashion, it puts a damper on that whole affair if they have to answer.
That's the thing to remember, as well. We're not talking even fatal v. non-fatal. We're talking the ambiguity, and the removal of said ambiguity through such questions. To that regard, I have to admit that I don't think your "Give an ambiguous answer" solution would work every time, either. In my experiences, while certainly that can satisfy some people, ambiguous answers can also lead to the inquirer pressing the issue. Not always, but it certainly can. Similarly, if you try to leave things ambiguous, it's possible that they may start insisting on their own canon to the creation, and then we'd be right back to that whole situation that you have an issue with. I also kind of feel like if you're going to just insist on "Who knows" and "It could go either way", why not just encourage them to decide for themselves, and enjoy it in their own way while others do the same?
—Damienfox
Source: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic.....g-our-comments I swear, I'm not even lying. :V
You are right in saying that the artist has an immense amount of power in that perception when they answer a question. Most artists I've found were nice enough to include in their answers, that other interpretations were still valid, so that's nice of them. I still don't think it's rude of the asker if the artist decided to affirm a scenario went one way or another. That was the artist's decision. If the artist didn't feel forced to give an answer, then I see nothing wrong in it.
The most important thing is that the artist has the right to say whatever they want about their piece. If they don't want to answer the question, or they want to warn readers that they will not tolerate such questions in their comments sections at all, is entirely up to them. If they really like answering such questions, that's tough nuts for the people who feel locked out because the ambiguity got taken away, but the artist does what they like to do.
For me, an asker is only rude when they directly go against the wishes of the artist. Hell, as a writer, I actually LOVE hearing such questions, because they kind of force me to think beyond the ambiguous (a story for me doesn't just end on the final page), and it can make me rethink the mechanics of a story entirely. And then I can use that to make things better later. So for me, such questions aren't just not rude, they're extremely helpful. If I -really- want to answer a question, I will, maybe that's more rude on MY part, but then again, people aren't exactly entitled to things being ambiguous either. BUT (super important) If an artist -insists- they want to leave something ambiguous or they really don't want to answer, the asker is rude when they continue, because they are going against the wishes of the artist. People pressing artists into doing something they do not want is a very different problem from the one-off "are they gonna be okay?". An artist should never be forced to answer. A person is never entitled to hear the opinion they want to hear.
--
"I also kind of feel like if you're going to just insist on "Who knows" and "It could go either way", why not just encourage them to decide for themselves, and enjoy it in their own way while others do the same?"
--
Actually. That does sound even better. If it helps to enthuse the audience to let their imagination go wild, then that's great. It's what I want to aim for. That's how a story becomes bigger than the final page. :3
(Real predators don't only play with their food anyway. >;3)
Not that this fetish is on par with that, but they draw from the same well.
But yeah, some people you kinda have to handle with kid gloves because a random stranger coming out of nowhere to tell them that they're babies usually doesn't end well or make them favorable to people on our side. XD
*burps and wipes lips* ;)
I guess for a lot (maybe most) people into vore they also are not into snuff, so they are freaked out by the implications. That's why you have the re-forming thing or even just the ambiguous endings. I'm not normally into vore because of a lot of the more fantastical elements involved and I don't necessarily like those. Like the swallowing whole prevalent in "soft vore", which to me just is "not right" (unless the pred is a snake).
I do sometimes get into hard vore as kind of a sub-genre of other extreme things I'm into.
But yeah, hard vore is certainly not what the majority of vorarephiles are into. People all have different lines they'll cross, and that one usually crosses into "nope" territory for a lot of folks.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
And should there ever be characters who are "untouchable" to vore predators?
As for the characters, also up to personal preference, but obviously it would be rude to use someone's OC against their wishes, so probably shouldn't do that.
The group is mostly there for people to identify themselves.
Looking back on my own work though, It is pretty ambiguous sometimes the fate of those that get eatin. While I try to express distress or unwillingness that doesn't necessarily mean fatal I suppose.
But like you said that can be a good thing.
Either way, good journal! Couldn't have put it better myself.
Not to say it's purely the non-fatal crowd's fault, but they do tend to be more sensitive and vocal about expressing displeasure. The fatal crowd just tends to take it for granted that the prey dies, which of course is obnoxious in itself.
But you're right. It's a shame that there's such a divide. Same goes for human vs. furry and male vs. female. Sucks that people can't just accept that the other people like what they like, or even mix things as you do with fatal/non-fatal and I do with furry/human/male/female to some extent.
—Samanthaweltzin